Research to Practice: Teaching with Integrity

Reader Note: This article provides a recap of a recent study featured in Research in Middle Level Educatoin Online. It is also the subject of Episode 3 of AMLE’s Middle School Research to Practice Podcast series. You can listen to the full discussion or enjoy the written recap here.

Before South Carolina offered a specialized certification for middle level education, I was supervising a secondary education student-teacher in a Grade 7 social studies classroom. The lesson was a fascinating, 70-minute exploration of the European Union—at least it was fascinating to me. Several students became visibly disengaged after 15 or 20 minutes, and one student entertained himself by throwing paper wads at his friends. The student-teacher persevered, though. After the lesson, we debriefed. I asked the student-teacher if he was aware of the disengagement and misbehavior, and he said he was. He had written a long-range planning document for the entire semester that included a plan for classroom management and student behavior, so I directed him to that section and showed him the following statement he had written: “I will treat my students as adults and expect them to act accordingly.”

But young adolescents are not adults, and my student-teacher’s misconception—his belief that his students should behave like adults during his lesson—had a detrimental effect in the classroom that day. As my student teacher learned that day, teachers’ beliefs matter—they matter a lot (Hollingsworth, 1989; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). Beliefs are cognitive constructs like mindsets—what Cameli (n.d.) called “an attitude with intention”—that can “move a philosophy forward” (para. 1). Beliefs are so fundamental to the practice of middle grades education that each iteration of AMLE’s position statement carries the title or subtitle: This We Believe.

Researching Teacher Beliefs

The recent middle level literature offers treatments of teacher beliefs in various contexts. Authors have explored the role of beliefs in technology integration in science (Hsu et al., 2020), educator preparation (Howell et al., 2018), implementation of middle school philosophy and reform (Andrews, 2013; DiCicco, 2016), restorative justice (Lund et al., 2021), and culturally responsive teaching (Nagle & Bishop, 2016). The January, 2023 issue of Research in Middle Level Education Online features a study by Vecihi Zambak and Andrew Tyminski that explored preservice mathematics teachers’ beliefs and the relationships among those beliefs and specialized content knowledge (SCK) and technology utilization. The study offers important lessons about the role of beliefs during preservice teacher education that can be extended to teachers’ learning and growth at all stages of their careers.

Zambak and Tymanki (2023) interviewed a group of preservice teachers to determine their beliefs about mathematics, mathematics teaching, and the use of technology in mathematics instruction. The preservice teachers then interpreted a task involving a sample of student work that had misconceptions related to the triangle inequality theorem and utilized Geometers Sketchpad, a dynamic geometry software application. The researchers analyzed the preservice teachers’ interpretations of the student’s work and use of technology in relation to the beliefs they expressed in the interviews.

The findings suggest that educators who hold certain beliefs about the content they teach and how they should teach are likely to teach in ways that, to some extent, align with or are influenced by those beliefs. For example, Zambak and Tyminski found that preservice teachers who tended to view technology as “a partner or extension of self” also had more manifestations of dynamic SCK, a characteristic of effective mathematics teachers. They also found that beliefs did not influence participants’ SCK “equally or in the same manner” (p. 13), echoing Goodman’s (2014) observation that the process of forming and reforming our beliefs is “highly individual” (p. 214). The Zambak and Tyminski study underscores the importance of supporting learner-centered, inquiry-based beliefs about mathematics instruction in pre-service education for middle grades mathematics teachers and developing positive beliefs about technology for supporting or extending learning.

Teaching with Integrity: Aligning Beliefs, Rhetoric, and Practices

The Zambak and Tyminski study is a reminder that teachers’ beliefs do not operate in isolation. Because teachers’ beliefs are a powerful influence on classroom instruction, assessment, and management, middle grades teachers should ensure that their beliefs systems align with what they say (i.e., rhetoric) and what they do in the classroom (i.e., practices). They should teach with integrity.

Teaching with integrity is a continuous, iterative process that begins with clarifying and naming one’s beliefs. This can be a challenging exercise because the roots of some of some beliefs are so deep that they might be invisible to the person (Goodman, 2014). To probe their research participants’ beliefs, Zambak and Tyminski (2023) asked such questions as: Could you describe mathematics as a discipline in your own words? How do you think it is different from other subjects? How do you think mathematics should be taught? What are the advantages or disadvantages of technology use in mathematics instruction? The purpose of all these questions was to learn about the participants’ beliefs about mathematics, teaching mathematics, and using technology as a teaching tool. Teachers can use similar questions to prompt the clarification and articulation of their own beliefs. Teachers should also read The Successful Middle School: This We Believe (Bishop & Harrison, 2021) and consider joining or leading a book study where beliefs about middle grades education are the focus.

In addition, teaching with integrity requires teachers to learn about the classroom practices that best align with their beliefs. Teachers should read professional literature, attend professional conferences and workshops, and form professional networks with other teachers. The “resources” tab on the AMLE website is a great place to begin a search for classroom-tested ideas geared toward young adolescent learners.

Finally, teaching with integrity means reflecting on one’s practice. This is the really hard part, because it means being vulnerable and opening oneself up to feedback. A teacher can ask a colleague or instructional coach to observe a class or review their teaching materials and assessments. A teacher can also ask students for honest feedback—they can be insightful, and they can be very honest!

As Zambak and Tyminski acknowledged, changing someone’s beliefs—even our own—can be very challenging. By clarifying and naming beliefs, aligning beliefs with effective classroom practices, and continuously reflecting on the manifestation of beliefs in the classroom, teachers can learn to align their beliefs, rhetoric, and practices and teach with integrity.

Author

David C. Virtue is the Taft B. Botner Professor of Middle Grades Education at Western Carolina University and the editor of Research in Middle Level Education Online. He is also co-host of The Middle School Research to Practice Podcast.

References

• Andrews, P. G. (2013). Advancing middle grades reform: Lessons learned. In P. G. Andrews (Ed.), Research to guide practice in middle grades education, (pp. 777–810). Association for Middle Level Education.
• Bishop, P. A., & Harrison, L. M. (2021). The successful middle school: This we believe. Association for Middle Level Education.
• Cameli, S. (n.d.). Making middle school philosophy work: Philosophy vs mindset. https://www.amle.org/making-middle-school-philosophy-work-philosophy-vs-mindset/
• DiCicco, M., Cook, C. M., & Faulkner, S. A. (2016). Teaching in the middle grades today: Examining teachers’ beliefs about middle grades teaching. Middle Grades Review, 2(3). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol2/iss3/3
• Goodman, J. R.(2014). Beliefs, practices, and preservice teachers: A case study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/2976
• Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.
• Howell, P. B., Faulkner, S. A., Jones, J. P., & Carpenter, J. (2018). Preparing middle level educators for 21st century schools: Enduring beliefs, changing times, evolving practices. Information Age Publishing.
• Hsu, P., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Al-Ararah, R. (2020). Exploring current practice of using technology to support collaborative argumentation in science classrooms. Middle Grades Review, 6(1). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol6/iss1/6
• Lund, M. K., Hillis, A., Green, J., & Mofield, E. (2021). Aligning beliefs to practice among middle grade educators. Middle School Journal, 52(3), 15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2021.1893592
• Nagle, J. F., & Bishop, P. A. (2016). The Nexus of teacher beliefs and culturally responsive teaching: Editorial remarks. Middle Grades Review, 2(3). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol2/iss3/1
• National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Author.
• National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents. Author.
• National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally responsive middle level schools. Author.
• National Middle School Association. (1982). This we believe. Author.
• Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
• Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education, (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). Simon & Schuster MacMillan.
• Zambak, V. S., & Tyminski, A. M. (2023). Connections between prospective middle grades mathematics teachers’ technology-enhanced specialized content knowledge and beliefs. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 46(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2022.2151681